Case study:
Robert Jones, a college student, was in a terrible car accident returning from spring break. He has been diagnosed as being in a persistent vegetative state for the past six years. Although Robert’s brain stem is still functioning, his heart is beating and he can breathe spontaneously, he is dependent on a feeding tube providing food and water to stay alive.
His doctors have come to the conclusion that Robert’s life is no longer of value to him and have requested that they be allowed to withdraw his food supply. It is legal for doctors to withdraw medical support, because feeding a patient is regarded as palliative care and not medical treatment.
Robert’s parents have taken the case to court in order to prevent his doctors from withdrawing his feeding tubes.
Your analysis:
You will need to look at this case from the perspective of deontological, utilitarian, and virtue ethics and justify your conclusions. You should write one paragraph supporting both the physicians’ and parents’ positions using each of the three ethical theories, for six paragraphs. This can be done for both sides of the argument by changing the principles invoked by each theory or changing how they are applied. Lastly, write one paragraph explaining what you think would be the best approach and why.
Here are some hints—Utilitarian perspective: pleasure/pain calculation Deontology: which principles are involved? Virtue Ethics: who knows better, who can make better decision, what a loyal, good person would do?